tetsoushima:That video was crazy. If that kid kept going, he probably would have somebody over. I'm not saying that shooting him was necessarily the best option, but given how recklessly he was driving I am not sure what else they could have done.

Sin_City_Superhero:NEDM: Sin_City_Superhero: MycroftHolmes: It really bothers me that they claim he was unarmed. A vehicle is a weapon,.

That'd be like saying a rock is a weapon. A rock can certainly be used as a weapon, but so can anything. A gun is a weapon. A tank is a weapon. A Hellfire missile is a weapon.

That may be so, but a rock is definitely a weapon when you're using it to bash someone's skull in. Just like how a vehicle is a weapon when you repeatedly ram people's cars with it.

My point being that if you describe every person who has an item capable of being used as a weapon as "armed", then the term "unarmed" loses all meaning, as anything can be used as a weapon. The term "unarmed", in this context, is pointing out that he didn't possess a gun, or a knife, or a Hellfire missile.

This happened in Iowa, so here's the law of that state, summarized: A dangerous weapon is an object that was designed primarily to inflict death or injury on a human being or animal (such as a knife, gun, razor) or any object that is actually used with the intent to inflict death or injury and capable of doing so. For example, a knife is a dangerous weapon, but a baseball bat could also be a dangerous weapon if used with the intention of causing injury.

So, if the guy was just driving his truck around, no, he's not armed with anything. If he made the conscious choice to use his truck as a weapon (or began to act in reckless and willful disregard to human life in his operation of the truck) , then he becomes armed.

I have a pen in my pocket. I am unarmed. I use my pen to stab you in the eyes. I am armed with a pen. Easy!

jaybeezey:Animatronik: jaybeezey: HotIgneous Intruder: You call the cops, you're writing off the kid.

Kid was living in a shelter, he had already been written off.

He was 19 years old. Perhaps drugs were involved, given how angry he was over "cigarette money"

I'm sure they were, but family is family. If you bail on your kid, what's to keep him/her from bailing on you.

If the kid was truly to the point of danger to himself or others, he should have been in psychiatric care.

It is nearly impossible to get someone involuntarily committed unless they are well and truly batshiat crazy. We're talking "making racecars out of my own poop" crazy. Tons of very dangerous people don't meet that threshold.

jaybeezey:Animatronik: jaybeezey: HotIgneous Intruder: You call the cops, you're writing off the kid.

Kid was living in a shelter, he had already been written off.

He was 19 years old. Perhaps drugs were involved, given how angry he was over "cigarette money"

I'm sure they were, but family is family. If you bail on your kid, what's to keep him/her from bailing on you.

If the kid was truly to the point of danger to himself or others, he should have been in psychiatric care.

Around here, you can't get someone committed for in-patient treatment until they have been through the police wringer. If you call the cops too quickly, the kid calms down, and the cops get mad at you for not being able to handle the problem. Wait too late, and someone is hurt or worse.

NarAnon is similar to Al-anon, and they support parents who feel compelled to call the cops on their drug addled loved ones. If you have never had to face someone you've loved turned into a completely violent stranger, you have no idea how hard it can be to apply tough love.

impaler:After watching the dash cam of the kid careening off-road in the middle of campus, I have no issues with the cop's actions.

Neither did I, when this thread first showed up. The guy was a threat to those around him, did quite a bit of damage, and only luck prevented the injury or death of innocent folks. The cops did what they were supposed to do, and, in the end, it meant shooting the guy rather than giving him more chances to injure or kill someone.

As anyone who has ever read my rants regarding law enforcement, I'm not fond of what they've become - but they were doing their job, regrettable as it was, in this situation.

impaler:After watching the dash cam of the kid careening off-road in the middle of campus, I have no issues with the cop's actions.

Neither did I, when this thread first showed up. The guy was a threat to those around him, did quite a bit of damage, and only luck prevented the injury or death of innocent folks. The cops did what they were supposed to do, and, in the end, it meant shooting the guy rather than giving him more chances to injure or kill someone.

As anyone who has ever read my rants regarding law enforcement knows, I'm not fond of what they've become - but they were doing their job, regrettable as it was, in this situation.

Sin_City_Superhero:MycroftHolmes: It really bothers me that they claim he was unarmed. A vehicle is a weapon,.

That'd be like saying a rock is a weapon. A rock can certainly be used as a weapon, but so can anything. A gun is a weapon. A tank is a weapon. A Hellfire missile is a weapon.

Yes, if someone is bashing my head in with a rock, describing him as unarmed would be inaccurate. If someone is ramming cars with a truck, describing him as unarmed is inaccurate.

Just to put a little perspective, though, if I had a 1 pound rock and was able to swing it at 75 miles per hour, versus a 3000 pound truck travelling 20 miles per hour, the truck would be able to apply 177 times as much energy. The car is a much more dangerous weapon than a rock.

Sin_City_Superhero:NEDM: Sin_City_Superhero: MycroftHolmes: It really bothers me that they claim he was unarmed. A vehicle is a weapon,.

That'd be like saying a rock is a weapon. A rock can certainly be used as a weapon, but so can anything. A gun is a weapon. A tank is a weapon. A Hellfire missile is a weapon.

That may be so, but a rock is definitely a weapon when you're using it to bash someone's skull in. Just like how a vehicle is a weapon when you repeatedly ram people's cars with it.

My point being that if you describe every person who has an item capable of being used as a weapon as "armed", then the term "unarmed" loses all meaning, as anything can be used as a weapon. The term "unarmed", in this context, is pointing out that he didn't possess a gun, or a knife, or a Hellfire missile.

There is a common sense applied when using words in a non-technical sense. If an object capable of significant destruction is being used in a way to threaten or injure others, it is not inappropriate to desacribe him as armed, even when the object is not typically considered a weapon. It is more than a bit disingenuous to stress that an individual is unarmed when they are using their vehicle as a weapon.

It's like Godzilla. See, Godzilla was unarmed lost of the time, but the military used just about every weapon they had against him because of the amount of damage he was capable of. Yup, just like that.

Sin_City_Superhero:NEDM: Sin_City_Superhero: MycroftHolmes: It really bothers me that they claim he was unarmed. A vehicle is a weapon,.

That'd be like saying a rock is a weapon. A rock can certainly be used as a weapon, but so can anything. A gun is a weapon. A tank is a weapon. A Hellfire missile is a weapon.

That may be so, but a rock is definitely a weapon when you're using it to bash someone's skull in. Just like how a vehicle is a weapon when you repeatedly ram people's cars with it.

My point being that if you describe every person who has an item capable of being used as a weapon as "armed", then the term "unarmed" loses all meaning, as anything can be used as a weapon. The term "unarmed", in this context, is pointing out that he didn't possess a gun, or a knife, or a Hellfire missile.

"Point taken."

I'm pretty sure this is what you meant to say.

/no, really//especially since NEDM specified "when you're using it to" rather than "any item capable of"

Link goes to the worst pop-up ridden site I have seen (that isnt PRON). Some garbage ad-spewer called "Flowplayer" not only had button to close it, but kept restarting when stopped and then popped out a second infernal pest of itself down the page. So save anyone who clicked yet the pain, the cops chase the truck, truck comes to a stop, and you see nothing. Craptastic site needs to be shot by police.

MycroftHolmes:Yes, if someone is bashing my head in with a rock, describing him as unarmed would be inaccurate. If someone is ramming cars with a truck, describing him as unarmed is inaccurate.

Ooh, I do love a good semantic debate. I'm going to weigh in on the other side here. Armed vs. Unarmed, as the name suggests, indicates whether you are carrying arms (armaments). Nobody considers a rock a type of armament, nor a vehicle unless it's strapped with guns and armor.. some gray area there maybe, but not a landscaping truck anyway. You could say "armed only with a rock", implying he's not truly armed, but is using something for that purpose.

Regardless,to say that someone driving erratically in a vehicle is "armed" is inaccurate to most everyone's definition but yours, andcertainly not something you'd ever hear from an officer or a journalist.

Sry. Corrected:Link goes to the worst pop-up ridden site I have seen (that isn't PRON). Some garbage ad-spewer called "Flowplayer" not only had NO button to close it, but kept restarting when stopped only to pop out a second infernal pest of itself down the page. TO save anyone some pain who hasn't clicked yet, the cops chase the truck, truck comes to a stop, and you see nothing on camera.

Craptastic site needs to be shot by police. It killed my pop-up blocker. It is a threat to others. It needs to die.

Lyonid:Sin_City_Superhero: NEDM: Sin_City_Superhero: MycroftHolmes: It really bothers me that they claim he was unarmed. A vehicle is a weapon,.

That'd be like saying a rock is a weapon. A rock can certainly be used as a weapon, but so can anything. A gun is a weapon. A tank is a weapon. A Hellfire missile is a weapon.

That may be so, but a rock is definitely a weapon when you're using it to bash someone's skull in. Just like how a vehicle is a weapon when you repeatedly ram people's cars with it.

My point being that if you describe every person who has an item capable of being used as a weapon as "armed", then the term "unarmed" loses all meaning, as anything can be used as a weapon. The term "unarmed", in this context, is pointing out that he didn't possess a gun, or a knife, or a Hellfire missile.

"Point taken."

I'm pretty sure this is what you meant to say.

/no, really//especially since NEDM specified "when you're using it to" rather than "any item capable of"

The part I find objectionable is not the idea that he was armed with a car, but that the articles explicitly describe him as unarmed. This is disingenuous in the extreme. This would be like saying 'Unarmed man stabs wife with screwdriver' or 'unarmed man beats person to death with golf club'. This is bad, biased journalism.

limeybrit9:MycroftHolmes:Yes, if someone is bashing my head in with a rock, describing him as unarmed would be inaccurate. If someone is ramming cars with a truck, describing him as unarmed is inaccurate.

Ooh, I do love a good semantic debate. I'm going to weigh in on the other side here. Armed vs. Unarmed, as the name suggests, indicates whether you are carrying arms (armaments). Nobody considers a rock a type of armament, nor a vehicle unless it's strapped with guns and armor.. some gray area there maybe, but not a landscaping truck anyway. You could say "armed only with a rock", implying he's not truly armed, but is using something for that purpose.

Regardless,to say that someone driving erratically in a vehicle is "armed" is inaccurate to most everyone's definition but yours, andcertainly not something you'd ever hear from an officer or a journalist.

The classification of on object is defined by it's capability and utility. No one objected to the terrorist as being described as being armed with boxcutters, because they were capable of , and being used as, weapons, even though that was not their designed use. If a person is using the vehicle to ram other vehicles, it is being used as weapon. Now, if he was just driving erratically, not with willful intent to harm, then I might agree with you. The video clip I saw showed him deliberately ram another vehicle.

We see police aiming Tasers after the kid was shot multiple times. Isn't the Taser the first weapon to use - not the last? On a progressive scale of force, the cops reversed the order of lethality... They blew up the village in order to electrocute it.

FlaminFilly:We see police aiming Tasers after the kid was shot multiple times. Isn't the Taser the first weapon to use - not the last? On a progressive scale of force, the cops reversed the order of lethality... They blew up the village in order to electrocute it.

Tasers don't penetrate glass & sheet metal.

Regardless, I didn't see any tasers in that video, just what looked like a pistol with a light attached to the bottom of the muzzle.

MycroftHolmes:Lyonid: Sin_City_Superhero: NEDM: Sin_City_Superhero: MycroftHolmes: It really bothers me that they claim he was unarmed. A vehicle is a weapon,.

That'd be like saying a rock is a weapon. A rock can certainly be used as a weapon, but so can anything. A gun is a weapon. A tank is a weapon. A Hellfire missile is a weapon.

That may be so, but a rock is definitely a weapon when you're using it to bash someone's skull in. Just like how a vehicle is a weapon when you repeatedly ram people's cars with it.

My point being that if you describe every person who has an item capable of being used as a weapon as "armed", then the term "unarmed" loses all meaning, as anything can be used as a weapon. The term "unarmed", in this context, is pointing out that he didn't possess a gun, or a knife, or a Hellfire missile.

"Point taken."

I'm pretty sure this is what you meant to say.

/no, really//especially since NEDM specified "when you're using it to" rather than "any item capable of"

The part I find objectionable is not the idea that he was armed with a car, but that the articles explicitly describe him as unarmed. This is disingenuous in the extreme. This would be like saying 'Unarmed man stabs wife with screwdriver' or 'unarmed man beats person to death with golf club'. This is bad, biased journalism.

Lyonid:MycroftHolmes: Lyonid: Sin_City_Superhero: NEDM: Sin_City_Superhero: MycroftHolmes: It really bothers me that they claim he was unarmed. A vehicle is a weapon,.

That'd be like saying a rock is a weapon. A rock can certainly be used as a weapon, but so can anything. A gun is a weapon. A tank is a weapon. A Hellfire missile is a weapon.

That may be so, but a rock is definitely a weapon when you're using it to bash someone's skull in. Just like how a vehicle is a weapon when you repeatedly ram people's cars with it.

My point being that if you describe every person who has an item capable of being used as a weapon as "armed", then the term "unarmed" loses all meaning, as anything can be used as a weapon. The term "unarmed", in this context, is pointing out that he didn't possess a gun, or a knife, or a Hellfire missile.

"Point taken."

I'm pretty sure this is what you meant to say.

/no, really//especially since NEDM specified "when you're using it to" rather than "any item capable of"

The part I find objectionable is not the idea that he was armed with a car, but that the articles explicitly describe him as unarmed. This is disingenuous in the extreme. This would be like saying 'Unarmed man stabs wife with screwdriver' or 'unarmed man beats person to death with golf club'. This is bad, biased journalism.

MycroftHolmes:The part I find objectionable is not the idea that he was armed with a car, but that the articles explicitly describe him as unarmed

Why am I being lambasted for pointing this out?

Sin_City_Superhero:The term "unarmed", in this context, is pointing out that he didn't possess a gun, or a knife, or a Hellfire missile.

Had they said that the guy was armed, people would assume that he had something normally considered a "weapon" (a gun, a knife, a crossbow, etc.) as well as the truck, at his disposal...which wasn't the case.

impaler:strathmeyer: Hard to see why they were justified in killing him after his car was immobilized

Who said his car was immobilized.

The office said the guy was revving his engine. But that doesn't help the position of blaming the police. And some people just thing the police are bad through and through and there's nothing that'll change it. So they invent reasons for them to be wrong.

Wrong - a tragedy is not necessarily an injustice, or undeserved outcome. It is just a sad tale of human inevitability and failure.MacBeth was a rotten S.O.B who deserved every thing he got - his tale is still regarded as one of the great tragedies.Learn what words mean before you dispute other people's use of them.

impaler:Mr.Poops: But then you watch the video, numerous red lights ran -- then he goes into a park/campus area with people walking around.

Almost literally in the middle of the ISU campus.

Between classes, these sidewalks are pretty full.

[growlersoftware.com image 689x442]

The quad is one of the busiest areas on campus, period. All those sidewalks are crammed with people. And it's homecoming week - once classes got out, there would have been tons of people streaming around. That big white tent in the video? That's where they put the catered lunches they do during that week. Once classes let out, there would have been a huge line for the food. And it would have been over one of the busiest passing periods. *shudders* If he had been 10 minutes later....no way there wouldn't've been casualties.

\Still amazed he didn't hit a CyRide - he went right up the street the orange route uses and it has buses leaving every 2-3 min from Parks Library\\ Graduated from ISU this past May\\\ Little sister still goes there - I'm so glad she wasn't out there when that happened

Sin_City_Superhero:MycroftHolmes: The part I find objectionable is not the idea that he was armed with a car, but that the articles explicitly describe him as unarmed

Why am I being lambasted for pointing this out?

Sin_City_Superhero: The term "unarmed", in this context, is pointing out that he didn't possess a gun, or a knife, or a Hellfire missile.

Had they said that the guy was armed, people would assume that he had something normally considered a "weapon" (a gun, a knife, a crossbow, etc.) as well as the truck, at his disposal...which wasn't the case.

By describing a person who was shot as being narmed, the qualifier of 'unarmed' is being used to descriobe his threat level. It is inaccurate and disingenuous to describe him as unarmed with the implication that he wasn't a threat when in fact he was armed with a weapon capable of inflicting great damage, and was showing a willingness to use that weapon in a destructive manner.

Doom MD:tetsoushima: That video was crazy. If that kid kept going, he probably would have somebody over. I'm not saying that shooting him was necessarily the best option, but given how recklessly he was driving I am not sure what else they could have done.

FlaminFilly:We see police aiming Tasers after the kid was shot multiple times. Isn't the Taser the first weapon to use - not the last? On a progressive scale of force, the cops reversed the order of lethality... They blew up the village in order to electrocute it.

From the dashcam in TFA, what you saw was the officer's pistol with a tactical light mounted under the barrel. Saves you from having to hold your weapon in one hand and a flashlight in the other.

Very handy and mine would light up when I put my finger over a pad that was built into the grip: click on click off.

BiffDangler:Anybody who would call the cops to teach his son a lesson is a farking moron. If you don't know that cops shoot first and ask questions later these days, you haven't been paying attention.

what do you do with a raging juggernaut? i'm not asking about the article, but if someone had such a family member themselves (didnt even rta). If said person with anger issues is an adult, is threatening you, and yelling loud enough that neighbors might call the cops anyway, do I take him to an emergency therapist right then and there? is there such a thing? how do you get a person like that to go seek help? how do you keep him from breaking your stuff, and you?

you assholes have no idea what you're talking about, you've never had a truly difficult/dangerous family member

leftymcrighty:I agree that they kinda needed to shoot him after the whole thing was said and done, but really it was preventable. They shouldn't have engaged him on the chase in the first place. That's the reason so many cities have a "no pursuit" policy.

The guy was off his rocker, yes. But he wouldn't have been driving like that if there weren't sirens going behind him.

So just let them go? I'd agree that pursuit is not always a good choice, but a blanket policy of no pursuit emboldens criminals who know if they run nobody will chase them.

dabbletech:Sin_City_Superhero: MycroftHolmes: It really bothers me that they claim he was unarmed. A vehicle is a weapon,.

That'd be like saying a rock is a weapon. A rock can certainly be used as a weapon, but so can anything. A gun is a weapon. A tank is a weapon. A Hellfire missile is a weapon.

You know, in the old days that's how we dealt with Neanderthals. With rocks.

So what about a knife? Is it a weapon or is it a tool? What about a competition target rifle? they are purpose built for target shooting the way a racecar is built for a particular type of racing. A weapon is any object used to inflict harm. It makes no difference what the manufacture of that item intended it for.

strathmeyer:Mr.Poops: Hate to see deadly force used, but the cops were justified.

Hard to see why they were justified in killing him after his car was immobilized, then. We usually go for vigilante justice here, but not when police are the executioners.

The truck (looks like a good sized Ford F-250) wasn't immobilized. Just banged up a bit. If you watch it get rammed a couple times the truck then disappears leaving to the right out of view of the video and then (off camera) it appears the kid did a 180 degree right turn to ram the parked police car. You can watch the video to see chunks of red plastic fly across the video screen from right to left. Those chunks of plastic are from the light bar on top of the police car. So this kid pulled a 180 degree turn and stomped on the gas hard enough to ram a police car and destroy a good portion of the light bar on top of the car. At this point he was purposely aiming for police cars and, well, I'll say it: deserved to die. If he had rammed on police car like at the beginning of the video and then later stopped to surrender, the police could have arrested him. Trucking off-road in a heavy pedestrian area, refusing to stop, playing bumper cars with police cars, and then purposely ramming a police car while the police are outside the safety of the cage? Yeah, you gonna die.

Panatheist:BiffDangler: Anybody who would call the cops to teach his son a lesson is a farking moron. If you don't know that cops shoot first and ask questions later these days, you haven't been paying attention.

what do you do with a raging juggernaut? i'm not asking about the article, but if someone had such a family member themselves (didnt even rta). If said person with anger issues is an adult, is threatening you, and yelling loud enough that neighbors might call the cops anyway, do I take him to an emergency therapist right then and there? is there such a thing? how do you get a person like that to go seek help? how do you keep him from breaking your stuff, and you?

you assholes have no idea what you're talking about, you've never had a truly difficult/dangerous family member

Everyone is assuming dad is a smart, thoughtful, decent human being. A court records search reveals numerous convictions for alcohol-related and domestic violence-related offenses. He didn't call his therapist before calling the police. He was probably drunk at the time, and his selfish thinking led to this entire disaster. It was probably less "oh, it's so sad I have to do this", and way more "I'll teach that little FARKER a FARKING lesson!"

Sin_City_Superhero:NEDM: Sin_City_Superhero: MycroftHolmes: It really bothers me that they claim he was unarmed. A vehicle is a weapon,.

That'd be like saying a rock is a weapon. A rock can certainly be used as a weapon, but so can anything. A gun is a weapon. A tank is a weapon. A Hellfire missile is a weapon.

That may be so, but a rock is definitely a weapon when you're using it to bash someone's skull in. Just like how a vehicle is a weapon when you repeatedly ram people's cars with it.

My point being that if you describe every person who has an item capable of being used as a weapon as "armed", then the term "unarmed" loses all meaning, as anything can be used as a weapon. The term "unarmed", in this context, is pointing out that he didn't possess a gun, or a knife, or a Hellfire missile.

He possesses a vehicle that he is clearly willing to use as a weapon. I'd rather face off against a guy with a knife any day.

Unarmed means just that, unarmed. Not wielding a dangerous object, and not carrying anything clearly designed as a weapon. Not everything is black & white. Sometimes a screwdriver is a weapon, sometimes it's just a tool for turning screws. If you're brandishing a screwdriver and there's not a screw in sight, I'm going to consider you armed.

We could define "armed" as possessing a gun, but that dilutes the meaning of the term unarmed in this sort of context where people take it to mean not a big threat.

another cultural observer:Panatheist: BiffDangler: Anybody who would call the cops to teach his son a lesson is a farking moron. If you don't know that cops shoot first and ask questions later these days, you haven't been paying attention.

what do you do with a raging juggernaut? i'm not asking about the article, but if someone had such a family member themselves (didnt even rta). If said person with anger issues is an adult, is threatening you, and yelling loud enough that neighbors might call the cops anyway, do I take him to an emergency therapist right then and there? is there such a thing? how do you get a person like that to go seek help? how do you keep him from breaking your stuff, and you?

you assholes have no idea what you're talking about, you've never had a truly difficult/dangerous family member

Everyone is assuming dad is a smart, thoughtful, decent human being. A court records search reveals numerous convictions for alcohol-related and domestic violence-related offenses. He didn't call his therapist before calling the police. He was probably drunk at the time, and his selfish thinking led to this entire disaster. It was probably less "oh, it's so sad I have to do this", and way more "I'll teach that little FARKER a FARKING lesson!"

ok, I just see this story and just start worrying about my bro who can barely take care of himself. My folks weren't the best but they weren't as bad as this dad. not the same and my comments are pointless